The New York Times editorial board is now weighing in, saying it's a case of "statehouse swagger" in the gun debates. Today's editorial -- which follows a lengthy story in the paper's news section on the legislation -- casts the bill as one of the most extreme of its kind in the country.

The renewed attention is timely given that Republicans may very well get enough votes to override the governor and implement the controversial law.

The editorial begins, "As a measure of the gun culture's dangerous sway over statehouse politicians, it is hard to top the pending proposal in Missouri that would pronounce all federal gun safety laws null and void in the state and allow the arrest of federal agents who try to enforce them."

This bizarre legislation, which Republican majorities hope to enact Sept. 11, would override an earlier veto by Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, who noted the obvious fact that the measure is unconstitutional according to precedents stretching all the way to the Civil War.

But the bill's proponents care little for legal niceties, or for the near-certainty of an adverse court ruling against their hoary states'-rights gambit. Dusting off the polemics of nullification, the supposed "law and order" politicians in Jefferson City would rather support an unconstitutional measure than set a law-abiding example of government responsibility.

Some supporters of the bill respond to its critics by arguing that this effort is not so different from the legalization of marijuana in states like Colorado and Washington, which passed these laws in contradiction with federal policy. In its news report, the Times addressed this question, pointing out a key difference:

What distinguishes the Missouri gun measure from the marijuana initiatives is its attempt to actually block federal enforcement by setting criminal penalties for federal agents, and prohibiting state officials from cooperating with federal efforts. That crosses the constitutional line, said Robert A. Levy, chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute's board of directors -- a state cannot frustrate the federal government's attempts to enforce its laws.

While the supportive Democrats have gotten a fair amount of attention, State Rep. Jay Barnes has also received a lot of media as the sole Republican opposing the bill. Yesterday, Barnes published a post on his website reiterating his stance, writing, "The bill is plainly unconstitutional and has no chance of being upheld."

Advocacy group Progress Missouri's online campaign against the Second Amendment Preservation Act.

He further argues:

...there's not a single instance case in two centuries of constitutional case law in which a federal appellate court has upheld a single state's authority to (1) declare a federal statute unconstitutional on its own, and (2) criminalize the enforcement of a federal law by federal agents.

My point is the federal government has consistently overstepped the bounds of the rights granted to the federal government within the constitution. Unfortunately the supreme court has always upheld any challenge to that. Most of this has occurred under the guise of the commerce clause. That does not mean this was the intent of the framers of the constitution though.

...there's not a single instance case in two centuries of constitutional case law in which a federal appellate court has upheld a single state's authority to (1) declare a federal statute unconstitutional on its own, and (2) criminalize the enforcement of a federal law by federal agents.

Ridiculous waste of taxpayer money and the state and federal time. ...there's not a single instance case in two centuries of constitutional case law in which a federal appellate court has upheld a single state's authority to (1) declare a federal statute unconstitutional on its own, and (2) criminalize the enforcement of a federal law by federal agents.

Ive been saying this all along. Why when its marihuana, does the Feds not kick and scream supremacy, but when it's about guns, the Feds want it their way or no way. You can't pick and choose, it's all or none.

Article VI of the United States Constitution, the document that gun advocates always quote regarding their right to bear arms, states that federal law is the supreme law of the land and the judges in every state shall be bound to federal law. It's not pick or choose. You either SUPPORT the Constitution (all of it) or not. For Missouri to attempt to block any federal law, it's 100% unconstitutional under the provisions of Article VI.

"crazy tea party criminals"
when was the last time one of these targeted civilians overseas with "double-tap" drone strikes?
people who think rednecks with guns are a pandemic of violence have a lot of gall, or ignorance, or both...

"or the ones that stormed our nation's capital with an armed demonstration" and i am unaware this ever happened. can you please provide some kind of proof of it? and i don't mean from some site like "we-are-liberals.com"?

You mean the crazy tea party criminals that shot Gabrielle Giffords or the ones that stormed our nation's capital with an armed demonstration where they referred to our heroes in the armed services as the enemy?

Nullification FTW!!! Federal gun laws are only supposed to affect interstate commerce so if you have a machine gun made in MO that never leaves you don't have to abide, try telling them that, they'll give you 10 years